Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the \noncommercial use\ exemption in the FTDA was designed to prevent courts from issuing injunctions that collide with the First Amendment
• recognizing that the “noncommercial use” exemption in the FTDA was designed to prevent courts from issuing injunctions that collide with the First Amendment
• holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was appropriate because the “only indication that Mattel might be associated with the song [was] the use of Barbie in the title” — i.e., there was no evidence of likelihood of confusion
• noting that the commercial success of the Barbie Girl song establishes the fame of the Barbie mark.
• holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was appropriate because the \ only indication that Mattel might be associated with the song [was] the use of Barbie in the title\ — i.e., there was no evidence of likelihood of confusion
• concluding that the defendants’ conduct was expressly aimed at California where there was a plan to distribute a song throughout the United States and the defendants sent promotional copies to the United States, including California

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).